It doesn't matter what definitions or explanations you give him. He will only accept his own interpretations, ever, period.

At least Alfred Persson isn't going to be lonely anymore in his church of one. It's a church of two, now.

If God told you to not swear oaths, but somebody tells you "you can do it because so and so did it", is it right?If God told you not to call people Rabbi, Father, or Master, but somebody tells you "hey check out who did it, so can you", is it right?If God told you that your nobody in your church was above anybody else, but the clergy is above the others, is it right?If God told you not to swear, but somebody tells you "it's okay to swear for such and such reason", is it right?

If God told you not to bear false witness but to judge rightly, but you bear false witness under the justification that it's you doing it, is it right?

I always root back to what God told us. Explaining "yeah but Paul did it" when he did not witness the ministry of Christ, nor had a copy of the book of Matthew handy, plus most often written in letters, as the explanation... I don't buy it. Paul's letters are nice, but I don't find them infallible, as well as I don't find Paul infallible. Now the Pope... (LOL) People are wanting me to accept explanations on why not to obey God.

So Paul was less an apostle than the Twelve. No wonder no one here takes you seriously. You don't receive St. Paul; therefore, you don't receive Christ. Or should I say that you follow a Jesus you have made in your own image?

You said it, I didn't. I said Paul didn't witness the physical life of Christ.

It doesn't matter what definitions or explanations you give him. He will only accept his own interpretations, ever, period.

At least Alfred Persson isn't going to be lonely anymore in his church of one. It's a church of two, now.

If God told you to not swear oaths, but somebody tells you "you can do it because so and so did it", is it right?If God told you not to call people Rabbi, Father, or Master, but somebody tells you "hey check out who did it, so can you", is it right?If God told you that your nobody in your church was above anybody else, but the clergy is above the others, is it right?If God told you not to swear, but somebody tells you "it's okay to swear for such and such reason", is it right?

If God told you not to bear false witness but to judge rightly, but you bear false witness under the justification that it's you doing it, is it right?

I always root back to what God told us. Explaining "yeah but Paul did it" when he did not witness the ministry of Christ, nor had a copy of the book of Matthew handy, plus most often written in letters, as the explanation... I don't buy it. Paul's letters are nice, but I don't find them infallible, as well as I don't find Paul infallible. Now the Pope... (LOL) People are wanting me to accept explanations on why not to obey God.

So Paul was less an apostle than the Twelve. No wonder no one here takes you seriously. You don't receive St. Paul; therefore, you don't receive Christ. Or should I say that you follow a Jesus you have made in your own image?

You said it, I didn't. I said Paul didn't witness the physical life of Christ.

With the implication being... that we should ignore what he says in favor of the teachings of the Gospels? How does that not make him less than the Twelve?

BTW, how are you so sure he did not witness the ministry of Christ? He was active in Jerusalem almost as early as Pentecost itself, and Jesus was not all that unheard of in Palestine and Judea. It stands to reason, then, that Paul very likely heard a lot about Jesus and His followers.

It doesn't matter what definitions or explanations you give him. He will only accept his own interpretations, ever, period.

At least Alfred Persson isn't going to be lonely anymore in his church of one. It's a church of two, now.

If God told you to not swear oaths, but somebody tells you "you can do it because so and so did it", is it right?If God told you not to call people Rabbi, Father, or Master, but somebody tells you "hey check out who did it, so can you", is it right?If God told you that your nobody in your church was above anybody else, but the clergy is above the others, is it right?If God told you not to swear, but somebody tells you "it's okay to swear for such and such reason", is it right?

If God told you not to bear false witness but to judge rightly, but you bear false witness under the justification that it's you doing it, is it right?

I always root back to what God told us. Explaining "yeah but Paul did it" when he did not witness the ministry of Christ, nor had a copy of the book of Matthew handy, plus most often written in letters, as the explanation... I don't buy it. Paul's letters are nice, but I don't find them infallible, as well as I don't find Paul infallible. Now the Pope... (LOL) People are wanting me to accept explanations on why not to obey God.

So Paul was less an apostle than the Twelve. No wonder no one here takes you seriously. You don't receive St. Paul; therefore, you don't receive Christ. Or should I say that you follow a Jesus you have made in your own image?

You said it, I didn't. I said Paul didn't witness the physical life of Christ.

With the implication being... that we should ignore what he says in favor of the teachings of the Gospels? How does that not make him less than the Twelve?

BTW, how are you so sure he did not witness the ministry of Christ? He was active in Jerusalem almost as early as Pentecost itself, and Jesus was not all that unheard of in Palestine and Judea. It stands to reason, then, that Paul very likely heard a lot about Jesus and His followers.

Well I am not sure he did not witness his ministry, you are right, but I am sure he did not pick him as a disciple. I am sure that Paul's texts come after our Lord's ministry here. I am also sure that he murdered Christians and Peter was weary of him. His texts I see as letters and I see all the disciples as having the capability to be fallible and to sin. If there were not fallible, then we would have no need for 4 gospels. Paul's letters are important, I'm just stating that he may have not gotten the message on this teaching or did it in error. Remember the disciples forgot and then remembered of our Lord saying "he'd rebuild the temple in 3 days". Many years span here, and the letters are after travels, beatings etc.

It doesn't matter what definitions or explanations you give him. He will only accept his own interpretations, ever, period.

At least Alfred Persson isn't going to be lonely anymore in his church of one. It's a church of two, now.

If God told you to not swear oaths, but somebody tells you "you can do it because so and so did it", is it right?If God told you not to call people Rabbi, Father, or Master, but somebody tells you "hey check out who did it, so can you", is it right?If God told you that your nobody in your church was above anybody else, but the clergy is above the others, is it right?If God told you not to swear, but somebody tells you "it's okay to swear for such and such reason", is it right?

If God told you not to bear false witness but to judge rightly, but you bear false witness under the justification that it's you doing it, is it right?

I always root back to what God told us. Explaining "yeah but Paul did it" when he did not witness the ministry of Christ, nor had a copy of the book of Matthew handy, plus most often written in letters, as the explanation... I don't buy it. Paul's letters are nice, but I don't find them infallible, as well as I don't find Paul infallible. Now the Pope... (LOL) People are wanting me to accept explanations on why not to obey God.

So Paul was less an apostle than the Twelve. No wonder no one here takes you seriously. You don't receive St. Paul; therefore, you don't receive Christ. Or should I say that you follow a Jesus you have made in your own image?

You said it, I didn't. I said Paul didn't witness the physical life of Christ.

With the implication being... that we should ignore what he says in favor of the teachings of the Gospels? How does that not make him less than the Twelve?

BTW, how are you so sure he did not witness the ministry of Christ? He was active in Jerusalem almost as early as Pentecost itself, and Jesus was not all that unheard of in Palestine and Judea. It stands to reason, then, that Paul very likely heard a lot about Jesus and His followers.

Well I am not sure he did not witness his ministry, you are right, but I am sure he did not pick him as a disciple. I am sure that Paul's texts come after our Lord's ministry here. I am also sure that he murdered Christians and Peter was weary of him. His texts I see as letters and I see all the disciples as having the capability to be fallible and to sin. If there were not fallible, then we would have no need for 4 gospels. Paul's letters are important, I'm just stating that he may have not gotten the message on this teaching or did it in error. Remember the disciples forgot and then remembered of our Lord saying "he'd rebuild the temple in 3 days". Many years span here, and the letters are after travels, beatings etc.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

No, you're still asking us to do your dirty work for you. You ask them, then relay to us what they say.

It doesn't matter what definitions or explanations you give him. He will only accept his own interpretations, ever, period.

At least Alfred Persson isn't going to be lonely anymore in his church of one. It's a church of two, now.

If God told you to not swear oaths, but somebody tells you "you can do it because so and so did it", is it right?If God told you not to call people Rabbi, Father, or Master, but somebody tells you "hey check out who did it, so can you", is it right?If God told you that your nobody in your church was above anybody else, but the clergy is above the others, is it right?If God told you not to swear, but somebody tells you "it's okay to swear for such and such reason", is it right?

If God told you not to bear false witness but to judge rightly, but you bear false witness under the justification that it's you doing it, is it right?

I always root back to what God told us. Explaining "yeah but Paul did it" when he did not witness the ministry of Christ, nor had a copy of the book of Matthew handy, plus most often written in letters, as the explanation... I don't buy it. Paul's letters are nice, but I don't find them infallible, as well as I don't find Paul infallible. Now the Pope... (LOL) People are wanting me to accept explanations on why not to obey God.

So Paul was less an apostle than the Twelve. No wonder no one here takes you seriously. You don't receive St. Paul; therefore, you don't receive Christ. Or should I say that you follow a Jesus you have made in your own image?

You said it, I didn't. I said Paul didn't witness the physical life of Christ.

With the implication being... that we should ignore what he says in favor of the teachings of the Gospels? How does that not make him less than the Twelve?

BTW, how are you so sure he did not witness the ministry of Christ? He was active in Jerusalem almost as early as Pentecost itself, and Jesus was not all that unheard of in Palestine and Judea. It stands to reason, then, that Paul very likely heard a lot about Jesus and His followers.

Well I am not sure he did not witness his ministry, you are right, but I am sure he did not pick him as a disciple. I am sure that Paul's texts come after our Lord's ministry here. I am also sure that he murdered Christians and Peter was weary of him. His texts I see as letters and I see all the disciples as having the capability to be fallible and to sin. If there were not fallible, then we would have no need for 4 gospels. Paul's letters are important, I'm just stating that he may have not gotten the message on this teaching or did it in error. Remember the disciples forgot and then remembered of our Lord saying "he'd rebuild the temple in 3 days". Many years span here, and the letters are after travels, beatings etc.

And many of the Gospels came even later.

Exactly. The oral translation of the witnessing of or Lord was recorded. The letters/epistles were letters between people, Paul whom most likely was not witnessing him. The testimony of God here on Earth was most recorded in the 4 synoptics. The physical recording of Matthew may have come after the letters were written, so Paul may have not of had the teaching of this. But this was a very specific teaching of our God, spanning several versus & sentences. He even added an alternative. He added to not be above one another.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

No, you're still asking us to do your dirty work for you. You ask them, then relay to us what they say.

Heh, its a simple email, direct from the source. The worst they could do is bite you. It's not dirty work, it was very open and known. I bet ya they won't send thugs to your place to break your knees

The thing is if I relayed, then responses could be like "yeah right or you made it up". If any of you care to do it, you have it directly from the source.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

No, you're still asking us to do your dirty work for you. You ask them, then relay to us what they say.

Heh, its a simple email, direct from the source. The worst they could do is bite you. It's not dirty work, it was very open and known. I bet ya they won't send thugs to your place to break your knees

The thing is if I relayed, then responses could be like "yeah right or you made it up". If any of you care to do it, you have it directly from the source.

Look, yesh, don't let your fear of what may happen keep you from fulfilling your responsibility to back up what you assert on this forum. Let me repeat what biro and I have both said: YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. As it stands now, the only way we're going to think you made this stuff up is if you hold to the status quo by NOT doing anything to back up your claims.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

No, you're still asking us to do your dirty work for you. You ask them, then relay to us what they say.

Heh, its a simple email, direct from the source. The worst they could do is bite you. It's not dirty work, it was very open and known. I bet ya they won't send thugs to your place to break your knees

The thing is if I relayed, then responses could be like "yeah right or you made it up". If any of you care to do it, you have it directly from the source.

Look, yesh, don't let your fear of what may happen keep you from fulfilling your responsibility to back up what you assert on this forum. Let me repeat what biro and I have both said: YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. As it stands now, the only way we're going to think you made this stuff up is if you hold to the status quo by NOT doing anything to back up your claims.

For the record, is this an official request from a moderator? If not, can you make it a request?

« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 06:22:06 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

No, you're still asking us to do your dirty work for you. You ask them, then relay to us what they say.

Heh, its a simple email, direct from the source. The worst they could do is bite you. It's not dirty work, it was very open and known. I bet ya they won't send thugs to your place to break your knees

The thing is if I relayed, then responses could be like "yeah right or you made it up". If any of you care to do it, you have it directly from the source.

Look, yesh, don't let your fear of what may happen keep you from fulfilling your responsibility to back up what you assert on this forum. Let me repeat what biro and I have both said: YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. As it stands now, the only way we're going to think you made this stuff up is if you hold to the status quo by NOT doing anything to back up your claims.

I've backed up so much stuff on here, only to have sources routinely slapped.

Email them. It's faster than responding on the forum. I witnessed it, and I don't need to prove it to myself. Nobody believes sources I cite anyway... Including sources such as Wikipedia. Shall I paste at least 20 examples since joining this forum examples of people discrediting my sources, including BISHOPS who were ordained. Such as when I posted Archbishop Gregory in CO, and people all go "he's a radical, and that doesn't count". When I cite sources such as Wikipedia "It's a dumb web site and doesn't count".

So no, if you are going to believe I made it up, I guess I don't care because I know the truth. I witnessed it happen with my own two eyes. So, all it takes is a simple email. Here I'll type it up for you. Just so any source I may give you won't be the subject of scrutiny and ridicule.

I already gave the link for the WCC site. All you have to do is click the "contact us" button and paste this.

Dear WCC,

I am curious if the WCC ever makes contributions to its members financially. I'm also specifically curious if the WCC ever contributes or has contributed financially to the Orthodox Church in America. Has the WCC ever contributed financially to the OCA since its membership in 1953?

Thank youSign here

It's not a big secret. I'm not giving links, they just get slapped or the author ridiculed. If its a blog, "oh whatever, its just some blog". If I paste a response from them (the WCC) "That's made up". Hear it from them if you so desire. I can state "the sky is blue" without giving a source because I witnessed it. I have nothing to prove, and I know the truth. If you want to know the truth email the source. The WCC is pretty open about stuff. Getting an email from them would be ultimately a definitive source beyond anything I could give.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

No, you're still asking us to do your dirty work for you. You ask them, then relay to us what they say.

Heh, its a simple email, direct from the source. The worst they could do is bite you. It's not dirty work, it was very open and known. I bet ya they won't send thugs to your place to break your knees

The thing is if I relayed, then responses could be like "yeah right or you made it up". If any of you care to do it, you have it directly from the source.

Look, yesh, don't let your fear of what may happen keep you from fulfilling your responsibility to back up what you assert on this forum. Let me repeat what biro and I have both said: YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. As it stands now, the only way we're going to think you made this stuff up is if you hold to the status quo by NOT doing anything to back up your claims.

For the record, is this an official request from a moderator? If not, can you make it a request?

No need to. The source I cite is the WCC. Email them for the information. I'm sure they'll share. That's a beyond shadow of a doubt source.

Why do Bishops equip themselves the gold and pricy robes? This is the problem here, not their title...

One of Georgian priests answered the question about this, citing the woman sinner who was washing Jesus's feet with pricy vase. Or whatever it was. With this he justified the use of pricy cars among priests and bishops.

If there was no poor in the country - sure why not, but when at least 10% of the country is extremely poor, this is not ethical... Church gets 25 million dollars every year from the government too, which in my opinion is quite unlawful...

St. Basil the Great wrote a great homily about private property, I advice you to check it out.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

No, you're still asking us to do your dirty work for you. You ask them, then relay to us what they say.

Heh, its a simple email, direct from the source. The worst they could do is bite you. It's not dirty work, it was very open and known. I bet ya they won't send thugs to your place to break your knees

The thing is if I relayed, then responses could be like "yeah right or you made it up". If any of you care to do it, you have it directly from the source.

Look, yesh, don't let your fear of what may happen keep you from fulfilling your responsibility to back up what you assert on this forum. Let me repeat what biro and I have both said: YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. As it stands now, the only way we're going to think you made this stuff up is if you hold to the status quo by NOT doing anything to back up your claims.

For the record, is this an official request from a moderator? If not, can you make it a request?

What I typed I typed in standard black font, which indicates that I didn't intend the request to be the formal request of a moderator, but rather the informal request of just another poster. If I wanted to make the request formal, I would have typed it in bold green font like this.

As to whether this request should be made formal: Though I have the authority to make that call, I'll leave it to this section's moderator, Second Chance, to decide.

The point of the ecumenism comment was because the OCA gets payoffs by the WCC.

Payoffs by the WCC? What kind of payoffs?

I'm sorry, but this is a charge you're going to have to prove.

I say payoffs... Because I feel they sold themselves out to the WCC and ecumenism. Also they have been the benefactors of money from the NCC. Rather than making me prove it where web sites would be called "a blog" or discredited, research it with google at sites you'd find appropriate for information. I mean this stuff is not secretive or anything. It's known. Some of the old school ROCOR people (before ROCOR accepted ecumenism) probably know about this info.

They would call it "donations or funding". There has been a lot of money transferred, and I'm sure there are others on this forum who know about this as well.

No, you made the claim, you show your work.

Thank goodness you didn't decide to become an attorney. You don't know what libel is.

What source would satisfy you?

I've been told on this forum1) Wikipedia is not a source2) Internet sites are not a source3) Blogs are not a source4) Some web site of some guy is not a source

Go there. There is a contact button. You can simply email them and ask them about donations from the WCC to the OCA. From the "mouth" of WCC should satisfy a source. A web site could easily be shot down again or discredited. If you really want to know, ask them. They are pretty open about stuff... It's not a big secret guys... This information was open in the 80's into the 90's.

No, you're still asking us to do your dirty work for you. You ask them, then relay to us what they say.

Heh, its a simple email, direct from the source. The worst they could do is bite you. It's not dirty work, it was very open and known. I bet ya they won't send thugs to your place to break your knees

The thing is if I relayed, then responses could be like "yeah right or you made it up". If any of you care to do it, you have it directly from the source.

Look, yesh, don't let your fear of what may happen keep you from fulfilling your responsibility to back up what you assert on this forum. Let me repeat what biro and I have both said: YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. As it stands now, the only way we're going to think you made this stuff up is if you hold to the status quo by NOT doing anything to back up your claims.

For the record, is this an official request from a moderator? If not, can you make it a request?

No need to. The source I cite is the WCC. Email them for the information. I'm sure they'll share. That's a beyond shadow of a doubt source.

I'm not playing that game, yesh. YOU made the claim. That makes it YOUR burden, not mine nor anyone else's, to back it up. If you can't or won't back up your claim, then you need to rescind it.

As far as taking oaths, we were also told not to do so. We are not supposed to swear anything. This means you are unable to be on a Jury (sworn in + you have to judge), you can't be a doctor, you can't work for the government (oath of office).

What about checking a box to agree to abide by terms of using software?

What about agreeing to terms of membership on an internet forum? Did you along with all of the rest of us sin when you/we checked such a box upon joining OC.net?

What about signing loan papers to purchase a house or car?

What about marriage vows?

(P.S. I'm honestly not trying to be snarky at all, I am really curious what your answer might be).